In God We Must

[Admiral Yi]

Bowing out. You're a pro. I'm a well-meaning amateur fitting the odd post in around lawyering.

You need to get your priorities right.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I'm having a hard time grasping what Marty is getting at.

What I don't like about Dawkins is the sense he against freedom of speech and religion.  Of course he doesn't say that, but some ideas and statements indicate this opinion.  In particular the idea of "memes".  Memes are popular nonsense.  It's supporters call it "protoscience", but the idea has been kicking around since the 1970's and the fact that it hasn't fruited into an actual science indicates to me that it never will.  I think it's fairer to call it pseudoscience and relegate to phrenology and the like.  However, meme theory has deeply unpleasant implications.  That ideas aren't your own, they are sort of "mind viruses".  When viewed through this lens the freedom of to hold and promulgate ideas is eroded.  You don't have a right to have a virus.  You can sometimes be put under quarantine for having a virus.  If we view ideas in the same way as viruses then it makes sense for the state to step in and prevent the spread of "bad ideas".

[Gups]

Bowing out. You're a pro. I'm a well-meaning amateur fitting the odd post in around lawyering.

You need to get your priorities right.

I've got my priorities right. My boss is the problem.

Apparently there's no financial upside for him in me spending hours on the internet. I'm sure Raz would put him straight though.

[Razgovory]

Bowing out. You're a pro. I'm a well-meaning amateur fitting the odd post in around lawyering.

You need to get your priorities right.

Or at least cut down on the strawman statements.  Christ, leave some hay for the rest of us.

[Gups]

Or at least cut down on the strawman statements.  Christ, leave some hay for the rest of us.

Now, that's what I'm talking about. Pure quality. Years of training.

[Razgovory]

Do you deny that

Dawkins is the world leader of the church of atheism. All atheists follow him, except for the heretical splitters. We know this because he gets invited to speak at places and has made money from writing books.

Is a strawman statement.  I don't think I or anyone else has argued this.

[Martinus]

Yeah, I'm having a hard time grasping what Marty is getting at.

"Yeah" to what? He is saying "don't be like Marty by making stupid analogies in response to Marty's post." That doesn't mean "Marty is not making sense". It means you aren't making sense.

What I don't like about Dawkins is the sense he against freedom of speech and religion.  Of course he doesn't say that, but some ideas and statements indicate this opinion.  In particular the idea of "memes".  Memes are popular nonsense.  It's supporters call it "protoscience", but the idea has been kicking around since the 1970's and the fact that it hasn't fruited into an actual science indicates to me that it never will.  I think it's fairer to call it pseudoscience and relegate to phrenology and the like.  However, meme theory has deeply unpleasant implications.  That ideas aren't your own, they are sort of "mind viruses".  When viewed through this lens the freedom of to hold and promulgate ideas is eroded.  You don't have a right to have a virus.  You can sometimes be put under quarantine for having a virus.  If we view ideas in the same way as viruses then it makes sense for the state to step in and prevent the spread of "bad ideas".

That interpretation makes no sense at all. The idea of memes means simply that our ideas and the way we view the world is deeply affected by the society and the community in which we grow up - and some ideas are more likely to spread in communities than others. Surely, there is nothing controversial about this statement - or are you claiming that people develop ideas entirely independently of everything and with no external influence (and for some reason, this is the justification for freedom of speech and religion, too).

Anyway, I'm gonna agree with Gupta and stop arguing with you. You do not respect basic intellectual honesty.

[Martinus]

Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations.  You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.

The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.  But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid.  It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.

Anyway, thanks for this post. Nothing like attacking me personally while you are essentially saying my opponent in this discussion is wrong. Classy. It's like a meta ad hom.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I'm having a hard time grasping what Marty is getting at.

"Yeah" to what? He is saying "don't be like Marty by making stupid analogies in response to Marty's post." That doesn't mean "Marty is not making sense". It means you aren't making sense.

What I don't like about Dawkins is the sense he against freedom of speech and religion.  Of course he doesn't say that, but some ideas and statements indicate this opinion.  In particular the idea of "memes".  Memes are popular nonsense.  It's supporters call it "protoscience", but the idea has been kicking around since the 1970's and the fact that it hasn't fruited into an actual science indicates to me that it never will.  I think it's fairer to call it pseudoscience and relegate to phrenology and the like.  However, meme theory has deeply unpleasant implications.  That ideas aren't your own, they are sort of "mind viruses".  When viewed through this lens the freedom of to hold and promulgate ideas is eroded.  You don't have a right to have a virus.  You can sometimes be put under quarantine for having a virus.  If we view ideas in the same way as viruses then it makes sense for the state to step in and prevent the spread of "bad ideas".

That interpretation makes no sense at all. The idea of memes means simply that our ideas and the way we view the world is deeply affected by the society and the community in which we grow up - and some ideas are more likely to spread in communities than others. Surely, there is nothing controversial about this statement - or are you claiming that people develop ideas entirely independently of everything and with no external influence (and for some reason, this is the justification for freedom of speech and religion, too).

Anyway, I'm gonna agree with Gupta and stop arguing with you. You do not respect basic intellectual honesty.

I am not sure you grasp the idea of memes.

[Razgovory]

Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations.  You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.

The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.  But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid.  It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.

Anyway, thanks for this post. Nothing like attacking me personally while you are essentially saying my opponent in this discussion is wrong. Classy. It's like a meta ad hom.

It just occured to me that I've haven't seen Grumbler post at all today, yet you've adopted his posting style almost entirely.  I wonder...

[Eddie Teach]

It just occured to me that I've haven't seen Grumbler post at all today, yet you've adopted his posting style almost entirely.  I wonder...

[Admiral Yi]

The only similarity I can see between Martinus and grumbler is they both have a tendency to treat any point they disagree with as the stupidest idea ever held.

[garbon]

Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations.  You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.

The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.  But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid.  It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.

Anyway, thanks for this post. Nothing like attacking me personally while you are essentially saying my opponent in this discussion is wrong. Classy. It's like a meta ad hom.

I'm not sure that CC said anything inaccurate in his post.

[Razgovory]

The only similarity I can see between Martinus and grumbler is they both have a tendency to treat any point they disagree with as the stupidest idea ever held.

They also ignore me.  And shout out "ad hom" when backed into a corner.

[Admiral Yi]

They also ignore me.

That probably describes a lot of posters.